To realize what is just and unjust to get a bigger picture of who we might gather opinions from. Who we regard as wise and unwise. Crito should seek the answer of the wise. Just as Socrates says in this passage. “Then, my friend, we must not regard what the many say of us: but what he, the one man who has understanding of just and unjust, will say, and what the truth will say.”
“So he became a philosopher- someone who does not give up but tirelessly pursues his quest for truth” (Gaarder 68). Throughout the novel, “Winnie-the-Pooh” by Ernest H. Shepard, Pooh strives to solve all of his problems with his ability to reason and think rationally. Pooh is a philosopher as he constantly searches for answers and analyzes situations with his remarkable insight. He can be compared to Socrates, a philosopher who stressed the importance of human reasoning and believed that the right insight led to the right action. Like Socrates, Pooh has great insight and also acknowledges that he knows very little.
Philosophical thinking uses three acts of the mind: understanding, judgement, and reason. In order to have a sound argument all of the concepts must be applied. Socrates didn’t want to please the people by saying or doing what they wanted him to say or do. Socrates thought it was not important to seek wealth or fame; he was concerned with truth and virtue. He wanted to create an impact on humanity by relying on the truth and shining a light in people’s lives, even if they put him on trial.
Socrates believed that evil (bad action) was the result of ignorance. Why did he hold this view, and do you agree? Socrates believed that evil was the result of ignorance because people who do wrong things wouldn’t choose to do a bad thing if they knew better. Socrates believes this because if they were educated on what is good, they would have made a better decision instead of bad ones, I agree with him because they will always be people that would do bad and good things. Plato - Social and Political
After reading The Defense of Socrates, many may question the premises on which Socrates’s argument rests. However, I believe there is a more important matter to consider that lies not within his words Socrates, but within his deductive reasoning and the unstated conclusion of said rash reasoning. The cornerstone of Socrates’s dashing defense is simple: one should value tr¬¬uth, wisdom, and self-worth over superficial gains and reputation. However, in making this case he also crafts a potentially controversial claim: that the best life is one in which one ignores their reputation and superficial desires. While reputation and materialism are not the crux of Socrates’s argument—they are really just asides he brushes off—they are an aspect of
Such is the case for Philosophy. From the Latin words phylos, defined as a love for something, and sophie, meaning wisdom, Philosophy is rooted in the love of wisdom, creating a direct connection between the two concepts. Thus, learning about the nature of wisdom can translate into deepening one’s understanding of philosophy, a truth emphasized in the Apology of Socrates and that which will always be relevant where there is a desire for education. At first read, the Apology of Socrates is a simple speech that serves its purpose poorly. Socrates was put on the stand to defend himself from the charges of impiety and corrupting the youth.
From the Apology, Plato shows how Socrates was unyielding in his morals. Any sensible person would have taken the choice to evade death and accepted the ignorant life was the best. However, Socrates defies this by stating the conjecture to the court that to fall to the swift wickedness is worse than death. With this, Plato is defining the logic of Socrates soul is right rather than the evident fact of what the court laws describe. In his passage of Crito, Plato examines the thought of honor in following through one’s own promise.
Agathon is talking about desire rather than really talking about what love is. I think this because desire is something you want while love is something that is something that you already have and will always have. This helps to bring in Socrates’ viewpoint about love. When he questions Agathon’s speech, he asks if love is a love of something and Agathon agree. This is important because you can love something that you already have as well as something that you have never had.
Through self-control. In this dialogue, Socrates explicitly states that the skills used to take care of what belongs to our bodies such as ring-making, or weaving do not make any of us self-controlled. Furthermore, someone who takes care of his body is taking care of something that belongs to his soul, and not himself (Plato, 131c). What Socrates is trying to do in this dialogue is help Alcibiades by teaching him that gaining self-control is to know himself, and before delving into the realm of politics it would be wise to know yourself in order to be a good politician. When you know yourself you are in full control of your actions which will guide you towards what is right and keep you away from what is wrong.
According to Aristotle, happiness is the ultimate goal that everyone seeks. “Happiness is of all things the one most desirable, and it is not counted as one good thing among many others” (p. 51). He explains that people have a different interpretation of what happiness really is, he explains that everyone believes to be happy by “living well” and “doing well.” However, Aristotle states in page 58 that “happiness is a certain activity in the soul in conformity with perfect virtue” and only certain people can obtain happiness and this is only if they perform noble actions. “Nobody would call a man just who does not enjoy acting justly, nor generous who does not enjoy generous actions” (p. 54). And if an individual performs noble actions towards others then they can reach happiness, but only if those actions are performed with the “help of instruments, as it were: friends, wealth, and political power” (p.54).
The Pre-Socratics used rational thought to explain their world; if nature causes it, nature can cure it. They tried to explain natural occurrences without the use of religion. The Sophists suspected that Absolute Truths and Ideals are relative to the individual; they are not set by a higher power, but we decide them ourselves with our own human ideas and experiences. This idea seems to put a lot of power in our hands. Socrates, the father of philosophy, used the Socratic Method to teach; he asked questions, allowing students to use their own prior knowledge to form answers, looking within to find the truth.
Adeimantus rejoined and claimed that no one wanted to be justice for its own sake, but for the reward they could get from it to have better lives. As Socrates had chosen from Glaucon’s classes, “second class of good, such as knowledge, sight, health, which are desirable not only in themselves, but also for their results”. Adeimantus forced Socrates to prove why he chose that. Socrates proved with example about a State, the Republic. To create the Republic people worked together.
Each one has expressed the importance of Aristotle’s view of leadership and opposing the way man has been conditioned to accept knowledge through science and reasoning. Levine and Boaks state that “the broadly Aristotelian account… demonstrates that leadership can and should be conceived of as a master virtue that, correctly understood, serves human flourishing” (2013). Keeping in mind that Aristotle’s Responsibility and the Primary Virtues of Character (Sachs, 2002) and Lewis’ The Abolition of Man (1944), in order to be a leader one must be ethically just, or what you will come to find as moral development. This is the concern of goodness and goodwill for your companions and leading because it is a beautiful, chosen virtue (Ethics, III, 1117a, 10). This courageous leadership translates to Lewis’ preservation of Man, not because you are conditioning man, but because you will make sacrifices in order for man to survive.
He believed that and act of friendliness was an act of weakness, and that those who preserved their liberty do so because they are strong. Thucydides did not believe in excellence and virtue, he was in contrast with Plato’s views; therefore, his ethical way of thinking was in accordance to that of the gods, “Our opinion of the gods and our knowledge of men lead us to conclude that it is general and necessary law of nature to rule wherever we can” () Anyhow, because of the constant danger that he had to endure during the war, his idea of the good human life was to survive by being able to control one’s mind in all circumstances, to protect oneself and loved ones, and to be generous with friends. However, to be as terrible as one could be against enemies. For him, making money, fame, and prestige was more important than the improvement of the soul. Thucydides justice depends on power; strong men will do what they have the power to do, and the weak will accept what they have to accept.